Indeed one of my favourite examples where semilandmarks are really useful is a paper by Hublin, Gunz et al. (with apologies for the inaccurate ref. and mixed up order of authors) where they manage to classify as Neanderthal a piece of cranial vault found (I believe) in Belgium and possibly in the sea. With all the limits we mentioned, it's probably hard to do any better. Certainly it's not the only type of useful application but that kind of 'forensic' analysis, where the main aim is pure classification accuracy, is where I see (potentially) less problems. However, even with phenetics (in the original sense of the term), putting together all sorts of different characters and characters states, regardless of their evolutionary significance, one could probably get a very good and stable classification. Yet, to what extent that would be biologically meaningful is hard to say, and we abandoned phenetics for cladistics. With shape data, as implied by Jim's comment to my message, we don't yet have the same kind of understanding to be able to do the same (some kind of 'biologically meaningful superimposition). For now, in a way, it seems to me that it's as if we were aligning sequences using, say, a least square method, which molecular biologists would never use because they know much more about DNA evolution and can model that more accurately in the alignment. We can't. Thus, for me, semilandmarks are useful if (as in your example) they may provide information which is relevant and there's no other way to get. The limits will still be there but the pros may be more than the cons. Where I disagree is the general trend to believe that more is always better.